Very Strong Evidence Against the Existence of the Supernatural

[Rational Agnostic]

1 - What do you mean? It sounds like you have a hope to disprove ALL phenomenons believed to be supernatural. Why?

2 - God can violate physics but not logic. God is the author of physics and we call His intervention here miracles.

3 - I've addressed this canard in detail elsewhere. What are the next immediate verses in this story?!

4 - The existence of people preaching religion and fighting religion on this forum are facts in evidence.

1) I mean that most mysterious phenomena previously thought to be supernatural has now been proven to be natural. No hoping involved.

2) God is the author of physics, but not logic? What do you mean?

3) See Matt 10:23 and and Matt 24:34 for the same failed prophecy in different words.

4) how so?

 

[james bond]

Many things that are overwhelmingly probable to be false are very difficult to disprove. I cannot disprove your beliefs and I will readily admit that. But (to use an illustration original to Christina Rad), I cannot disprove that their are invisible elves living in my behind either. Should I then state that this must certainly be the case because you cannot disprove it? Of course not; this would be utterly absurd. As with all claims, the default position is the null set. The onus is not on me to disprove the existence of the supernatural, rather, it is on those who claim it to exist to provide evidence for its existence, but so far, no one has successfully demonstrated that such phenomena exist.

I can disprove there are invisible elves living in your behind. We will do a colonoscopy on you until there is no more fudge left ha ha. I just told another internet atheist that if I received a $1 for every time they want evidence of God when it's right in front of their nose, then I'd be the richest man in the universe.

 

[Milton Platt]

WHAT? How does the conversation I was having have to do with the Abrahamic God being made of dark matter? The OP was about more than the Abrahamic God. And I am not even an Abrahamic.

Are you confusing me with another poster?

Must have......not the first time.

 

[Skwim]

I can disprove there are invisible elves living in your behind. We will do a colonoscopy on you until there is no more fudge left ha ha.

So, you believe that colonoscopes reveal the invisible? Might want to brush up on colonoscopes and their limits. Here, I'll start you out.

"A colonoscope is a long, thin, flexible tube with a camera and a light on the end. The tube is inserted into the rectum to look at the inside of the large intestine. This tool is used during a common diagnostic and screening procedure called a colonoscopy. A colonoscope could be used to perform a colonoscopy in a hospital or in an endoscopy center. Patients are typically sedated during a colonoscopy so that there is no discomfort or even memory of the procedure.

Pictures from the camera in the colonoscope are displayed on a video screen in the examination room. Still images may also be taken to allow the physician to take a closer examination and to make a comparison to earlier or later colonoscopy images. A colonoscope is used by a specialist physician with years of training, such as a gastroenterologist, a colorectal surgeon, or an endoscopy specialist. Patients with an interest should ask their physician about seeing the images from the test or even the video during the next office visit."
source​

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which ways are that?



Because if we bundle a bunch of claims together, if one claim is true, they all must be true?

We can reduce to one claim--spending time at a forum where you can neither undo what is self-evident to most people (God's existence), prove a negative (God's non-existence) and otherwise waste your precious time. Why are you here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can reduce to one claim--spending time at a forum where you can neither undo what is self-evident to most people (God's existence), prove a negative (God's non-existence) and otherwise waste your precious time. Why are you here?

Deflecting because you can't answer the question?

If you really want to know, these days, I'm here out of (possibly misplaced) faith in humanity. I don't think I'll ever become a theist myself, but I'm holding out hope that the many theists in the world have followed rational paths to arrive at their beliefs. I've yet to find a single rational path to any form of theism, but I feel that if I leave, it will be like declaring that no rational paths are out there for me to find. I don't want to dismiss most of humanity as irrational that way, so I stay. And as I stay, I keep getting more frustrated as it becomes harder and harder to maintain respect for theists and theism.

... and you sure haven't helped in that department.

There: I've answered your question; now answer mine.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) I mean that most mysterious phenomena previously thought to be supernatural has now been proven to be natural. No hoping involved.

2) God is the author of physics, but not logic? What do you mean?

3) See Matt 10:23 and and Matt 24:34 for the same failed prophecy in different words.

4) how so?

1) Weren't there always people, since ancient times, who believed rain and lightning and etc. had natural causes? Weren't some of the gods, even Thor, parodies of human foibles and superstitions?

Isn't it more open-minded to say instead, "Many superstitions have been disproved, but the Bible claims that their are evidentiary-based beliefs so that we can trust God and God's miracles?"

2) I don't understand your number 2. God made physics and logic alike. God will intervene in the natural world (physics, metaphysics) but cannot be illogical, since He is true to His own person and character, eminently reasonable and logical.

3) I didn't ask for a citation of the parallel passage, I asked you in both passages what follows IMMEDIATELY after, because it's the same in both passages, and fulfills the "before you die, some of you shall" statement!

4) What are you referring to?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I can disprove there are invisible elves living in your behind. We will do a colonoscopy on you until there is no more fudge left ha ha. I just told another internet atheist that if I received a $1 for every time they want evidence of God when it's right in front of their nose, then I'd be the richest man in the universe.

The elves are invisible, so a colonoscopy could not detect them. You are missing the point. It is an unfalsifiable claim, meaning it cannot be disproven. The same principle applies to your theistic beliefs.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

1) Weren't there always people, since ancient times, who believed rain and lightning and etc. had natural causes? Weren't some of the gods, even Thor, parodies of human foibles and superstitions?

Isn't it more open-minded to say instead, "Many superstitions have been disproved, but the Bible claims that their are evidentiary-based beliefs so that we can trust God and God's miracles?"

2) I don't understand your number 2. God made physics and logic alike. God will intervene in the natural world (physics, metaphysics) but cannot be illogical, since He is true to His own person and character, eminently reasonable and logical.

3) I didn't ask for a citation of the parallel passage, I asked you in both passages what follows IMMEDIATELY after, because it's the same in both passages, and fulfills the "before you die, some of you shall" statement!

4) What are you referring to?

1) There probably were ancients who believed that rain and lightning had natural causes. Good for them. Also, I never said that supernatural events cannot exist. However, none have been demonstrated to date. The default position is the null set. The onus is on you to demonstrate their existence; it is not on me to demonstrate their nonexistence.

2) You won't get an argument from me on this point, as I cannot speak about the nature of the god that you believe in.

3) The transfiguration follows the Matt. 16:28 passage, but not the Matt. 10:23 passage or the Matt. 24:34 passage.

4) I was referring to your claim that the existence of this forum is evidence of the existence of the Christian god. This makes no sense to me. Is the existence of the flat earth forum evidence that the earth is flat?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Deflecting because you can't answer the question?

If you really want to know, these days, I'm here out of (possibly misplaced) faith in humanity. I don't think I'll ever become a theist myself, but I'm holding out hope that the many theists in the world have followed rational paths to arrive at their beliefs. I've yet to find a single rational path to any form of theism, but I feel that if I leave, it will be like declaring that no rational paths are out there for me to find. I don't want to dismiss most of humanity as irrational that way, so I stay. And as I stay, I keep getting more frustrated as it becomes harder and harder to maintain respect for theists and theism.

... and you sure haven't helped in that department.

There: I've answered your question; now answer mine.

You bet:

Who'd have thought this frank talk about religion would result in heated debate?

I did.

You are choosing to disrespect me. I have been a respected preacher for many years and have given many church sermons as well as public seminars on the issues.

I will continue to show you love and respect regardless.

I recommend you look not to personalities who love to argue on religious forums but to read and contemplate the holy scriptures, which "are able to make one wise for all knowledge and salvation".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You bet:

Deflecting again.

I did.

You are choosing to disrespect me. I have been a respected preacher for many years and have given many church sermons as well as public seminars on the issues.

Am I supposed to be impressed by your church resume?

I will continue to show you love and respect regardless.

When have you ever shown me love and respect? You started here with contempt and snark for atheists in general and me in particular and never changed your tune. I've yet to see a loving word from you.

I recommend you look not to personalities who love to argue on religious forums but to read and contemplate the holy scriptures, which "are able to make one wise for all knowledge and salvation".

I've done that; I found the Bible lacking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) There probably were ancients who believed that rain and lightning had natural causes. Good for them. Also, I never said that supernatural events cannot exist. However, none have been demonstrated to date. The default position is the null set. The onus is on you to demonstrate their existence; it is not on me to demonstrate their nonexistence.

2) You won't get an argument from me on this point, as I cannot speak about the nature of the god that you believe in.

3) The transfiguration follows the Matt. 16:28 passage, but not the Matt. 10:23 passage or the Matt. 24:34 passage.

4) I was referring to your claim that the existence of this forum is evidence of the existence of the Christian god. This makes no sense to me. Is the existence of the flat earth forum evidence that the earth is flat?

Hold it a moment, please. So you admit that the transfiguration follows the passages re: "some of you will see God's kingdom" so that some disciples hear from Father God and see Moses and Elijah? Great.

The Matthew 10 passage says "you won't get through preaching across Israel before the Son of Man comes." Jesus was the Son of Man. He did catch up to the disciples and they traveled to Jerusalem where He was crucified for our sake.

The Matthew 24 canard is an old one, that "this generation" means Jesus would return in the lifetime of the apostles:

1) Peter speaks of Jesus NOT returning until the end times signs are fulfilled.

2) Paul speaks of Jesus NOT returning until the Third Temple is finished and the Antichrist arises

3) The Greek for "this generation" has 7 distinct concordance meanings in English. Only 1 means "you folks, alive now". Many translators, therefore, take the statement as "Israel will be Jewish when I return." Note: Israel became Jewish again soon after the Shoah!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are choosing to disrespect me. I have been a respected preacher for many years and have given many church sermons as well as public seminars on the issues.

I will continue to show you love and respect regardless.

I think it's interesting that when I respond to you with a similar tone that you use toward me, you think that I'm being disrespectful and you're being loving.

Seems that a serious misunderstanding of how you come across might be at the root of your problems communicating with atheists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Deflecting again.


Am I supposed to be impressed by your church resume?


When have you ever shown me love and respect? You started here with contempt and snark for atheists in general and me in particular and never changed your tune. I've yet to see a loving word from you.


I've done that; I found the Bible lacking.

May I ask you what you found in the Bible worthy and what you found lacking?

Because my frank experience is people usually have two reasons for not trusting Christ, what they tell you (I don't like Christians, the Bible is unworthy) and the real reason (moral degeneracy they wish to keep out of the light of Christ).

But we can start with reason 1--what in the Bible did you find good and what did you find bad?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

May I ask you what you found in the Bible worthy and what you found lacking?

Because my frank experience is people usually have two reasons for not trusting Christ, what they tell you (I don't like Christians, the Bible is unworthy) and the real reason (moral degeneracy they wish to keep out of the light of Christ).

But we can start with reason 1--what in the Bible did you find good and what did you find bad?

I think you're missing a few big reasons:

- no reason to consider the Bible true.

- emotional reactions to the morally repugnant aspects of Christianity.

For me, the biggest obstacles I found when I was seriously considering Christianity:

- evidence: I saw no evidence for any of the key stories of the Bible, or for the efficacy of prayer, or for the existence of God.

- morality: the atonement is repugnant. Any god that would take as "payment" the torture and murder of a truly innocent man (or god-man) is not one I could worship.

As far as "moral degeneracy"... my own behaviour is generally in line with Christian moral codes. I have serious problems with certain positions of some Christian denominations (e.g. anti-LGBT doctrines, anti-abortion doctrines, "prosperity gospel"-type overemphasis of material wealth), but this is about empathy and basic decency towards others, not about trying to get freedoms for myself.

 

[jonathan180iq]

In fairness, I can't tell if you're being an awesome troll or if you're serious, so...

So you are saying Sinter Klaas was a real person and sometime after his death the spirit of Santa Claus came to be and this is not supernatural.

Without the pressure of a cultural tradition and a designated holiday season, the "spirit of Santa Claus" would be nothing at all... It would have no power and it would affect nothing. Does it not seem a little odd to you that the "spirit of Santa Claus" only shows up when we're told by our society that it's time for him to be here?

If something can be controlled by our whims, it's not independent entity and therefore cannot be said to exist objectively, outside of our own imaginations. I could just as easily attribute my jolly nature in the winter to the fact that I'm indoors more, with fewer distractions, so I wind up having sexual intercourse more often (a known stress reliever). Does the spirit of Santa derive it's power from female genitalia?

 

[bobhikes]

@jonathan180iq
Or did the spirit of Santa Claus designate a time to come and culture built a tradition around it. Santa Claus has nothing to do with the Birth of Christ other than Sinter Klaas was presumably christian. Reindeer, Elves even gifts where no present at Christs birth. Red and Green the colors of Christmas have nothing to do with Christ. Santa Claus is not controlled by our whims but the tradition seems to control us. Santa Claus is even celebrated by non-Christians. I can see the day where Christianity falls and yet Santa Claus still exists but of course Santa Claus is a spirit.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think you're missing a few big reasons:

- no reason to consider the Bible true.

- emotional reactions to the morally repugnant aspects of Christianity.

For me, the biggest obstacles I found when I was seriously considering Christianity:

- evidence: I saw no evidence for any of the key stories of the Bible, or for the efficacy of prayer, or for the existence of God.

- morality: the atonement is repugnant. Any god that would take as "payment" the torture and murder of a truly innocent man (or god-man) is not one I could worship.

As far as "moral degeneracy"... my own behaviour is generally in line with Christian moral codes. I have serious problems with certain positions of some Christian denominations (e.g. anti-LGBT doctrines, anti-abortion doctrines, "prosperity gospel"-type overemphasis of material wealth), but this is about empathy and basic decency towards others, not about trying to get freedoms for myself.

***saw no evidence for any of the key stories of the Bible, or for the efficacy of prayer, or for the existence of God***

Are you referring to no evidence for the supernatural aspects of the stories? Because I find the stories and narratives of the great Bible figures by turns compelling, fascinating, self-revealing about my own foibles, etc. They are marvelous stories. Lincoln wasn't a Christian but read from the scriptures to White House guests for hours (along with Shakespeare)!

***the atonement is repugnant. Any god that would take as "payment" the torture and murder of a truly innocent man (or god-man) is not one I could worship.***

Some don't consider this a straight payment. Some consider this an exemplar of God's willingness to be kind, for example, see from Romans 3 one of my favorite passages:

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

***As far as "moral degeneracy"... my own behaviour is generally in line with Christian moral codes. I have serious problems with certain positions of some Christian denominations (e.g. anti-LGBT doctrines, anti-abortion doctrines, "prosperity gospel"-type overemphasis of material wealth), but this is about empathy and basic decency towards others, not about trying to get freedoms for myself.

I can certainly understand that, but we should go in order:

If the Bible is the true Word of God, all else proceeds from there including what are absolute moral standards and do individual sects adhere to them?

For example, I know Christians on both sides who love homosexuals: some want to love people by getting them freedoms to marry and socialize, some want to love people by using honesty regarding sin and salvation. Both come from love. Same with abortion: some want to love women to give them freedoms and economic power, some want to love women by having them not do self-harmful things (abortion).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

***saw no evidence for any of the key stories of the Bible, or for the efficacy of prayer, or for the existence of God***

Are you referring to no evidence for the supernatural aspects of the stories?

Yes, but also often non-supernatural claims (e.g. how the Gospels get details wrong about secular matters, as well as how different versions of the same stories in different parts of the Bible contradict each other).

The Bible has all the earmarks of being written by fallible humans and none of being written by (or inspired by) a god.

(Also, the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful god would decide that dictating a book and asking a group of humans to distribute it for him would be his best bay of getting a message to all of humanity stretches credulity.)

Because I find the stories and narratives of the great Bible figures by turns compelling, fascinating, self-revealing about my own foibles, etc. They are marvelous stories.

Well, there's no accounting for taste.

There are several authors I find inspiring; this fact doesn't suggest that their books were actually written by God.

Lincoln wasn't a Christian but read from the scriptures to White House guests for hours (along with Shakespeare)!

And Jefferson made his own version of the Bible with the parts he thought were unbelievable removed.

***the atonement is repugnant. Any god that would take as "payment" the torture and murder of a truly innocent man (or god-man) is not one I could worship.***

Some don't consider this a straight payment. Some consider this an exemplar of God's willingness to be kind, for example, see from Romans 3 one of my favorite passages:

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

My point is that "I forgive you" is more moral than "I'll forgive you once you torture and murder an innocent man."

***As far as "moral degeneracy"... my own behaviour is generally in line with Christian moral codes. I have serious problems with certain positions of some Christian denominations (e.g. anti-LGBT doctrines, anti-abortion doctrines, "prosperity gospel"-type overemphasis of material wealth), but this is about empathy and basic decency towards others, not about trying to get freedoms for myself.

I can certainly understand that, but we should go in order:

If the Bible is the true Word of God, all else proceeds from there including what are absolute moral standards and do individual sects adhere to them?

For example, I know Christians on both sides who love homosexuals: some want to love people by getting them freedoms to marry and socialize, some want to love people by using honesty regarding sin and salvation. Both come from love. Same with abortion: some want to love women to give them freedoms and economic power, some want to love women by having them not do self-harmful things (abortion).

I don't seriously think that you base your moral code on the Bible or on what you believe God has handed down. If you did, you'd hold the Exodus 34 Ten Commandments (according to the story, also written by God's own hands and intended as a replacement for the Exodus 21 Ten Commandments) as highly as the Exodus 21 version... if not higher. Do you keep the Feast of Weeks?

In reality, what Christians do is use God and the Bible as an echo chamber: God is the personification of the believer's ideas of virtue, so God commands what each person considers to be good and moral.

But in any case, I reject the idea that a code of behaviour is a moral system at all. Morality is based on values - and on balancing competing values - not on a static list of "do this, don't do that." In fact, following a rigid code of behaviour will result in immoral acts at least some of the time.

Morality is a system focused on the well-being of sentient entities. Basing a code of behaviour on some authority detaches it from well-being... and in the process, makes the code of behaviour not about morality at all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, but also often non-supernatural claims (e.g. how the Gospels get details wrong about secular matters, as well as how different versions of the same stories in different parts of the Bible contradict each other).

The Bible has all the earmarks of being written by fallible humans and none of being written by (or inspired by) a god.

(Also, the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful god would decide that dictating a book and asking a group of humans to distribute it for him would be his best bay of getting a message to all of humanity stretches credulity.)


Well, there's no accounting for taste.

There are several authors I find inspiring; this fact doesn't suggest that their books were actually written by God.


And Jefferson made his own version of the Bible with the parts he thought were unbelievable removed.


My point is that "I forgive you" is more moral than "I'll forgive you once you torture and murder an innocent man."


I don't seriously think that you base your moral code on the Bible or on what you believe God has handed down. If you did, you'd hold the Exodus 34 Ten Commandments (according to the story, also written by God's own hands and intended as a replacement for the Exodus 21 Ten Commandments) as highly as the Exodus 21 version... if not higher. Do you keep the Feast of Weeks?

In reality, what Christians do is use God and the Bible as an echo chamber: God is the personification of the believer's ideas of virtue, so God commands what each person considers to be good and moral.

But in any case, I reject the idea that a code of behaviour is a moral system at all. Morality is based on values - and on balancing competing values - not on a static list of "do this, don't do that." In fact, following a rigid code of behaviour will result in immoral acts at least some of the time.

Morality is a system focused on the well-being of sentient entities. Basing a code of behaviour on some authority detaches it from well-being... and in the process, makes the code of behaviour not about morality at all.

I'd like to address two of your points if I may:

It doesn't stretch credulity for God to send representatives/send messages orally/send written documents--those are three primary methods for communication.

It doesn't stretch credulity to say God is most available to the most open persons regarding God. Do you more avidly pursue people who mock you and deny your existence or people pursuing you for healthy relationships?

Of course I take the moral system from the Bible. I'm judged on trusting Christ and not circumcision or the Feasts. Being Jewish, I know about Feast and Fast keeping. I'm to love people and love God--and as Jesus said, that's pretty much what the Law covers!